Basic assumptions we make, part 1: The world is a fair place

[QuestionMark]

You too, but look above. You took one line from my post and responded to it. I did the same. Are you a hypocrite?

[QuestionMark]

If someone killed people I cared about, my main concern wouldn't be hating them and seeking retribution. I would want to understand why they did it, and see if I could make changes in how society works so that other people are less likely to do the same in future.

Kidnapping, rape, murder, perjury. Let's add hypocrisy. What if they spent their life talking about how these things are disgusting while keeping a sex slave in their basement?

You want to understand this person? What's to understand? They are rotten to the core, hardened in heart. They know that what they do is wrong, and do it anyway, and then hypocritically judge others for it.

And you want to understand them?

[JustMyron]

If someone killed people I cared about, my main concern wouldn't be hating them and seeking retribution. I would want to understand why they did it, and see if I could make changes in how society works so that other people are less likely to do the same in future.

Summary: I think some people are evil.

And you want to understand them?

Yes.

[JustMyron]

You too, but look above. You took one line from my post and responded to it. I did the same. Are you a hypocrite?

If you had read my post, you would know that I responded to all of your post, even though I only quoted one line. So no, I'm not a hypocrite.

[QuestionMark]

JM, you fit so much stuff into your page long posts that it would take me a month to reply.

[JustMyron]

Yeah, probably. So? I'm still not a hypocrite, and you still should have read my post before responding to it. The OP for this thread was long and rambling, but that's irrelevant. My post which you didn't read wasn't that much longer than the one you made that I was responding to. At the very least, you ought to have read my response before suggesting I might be a hypocrite for not responding properly.

Basic conversational etiquette.

[QuestionMark]

If someone killed people I cared about, my main concern wouldn't be hating them and seeking retribution. I would want to understand why they did it, and see if I could make changes in how society works so that other people are less likely to do the same in future.

Kidnapping, rape, murder, perjury. Let's add hypocrisy. What if they spent their life talking about how these things are disgusting while keeping a sex slave in their basement?

You want to understand this person? What's to understand? They are rotten to the core, hardened in heart. They know that what they do is wrong, and do it anyway, and then hypocritically judge others for it.

And you want to understand them?

[JustMyron]

If someone killed people I cared about, my main concern wouldn't be hating them and seeking retribution. I would want to understand why they did it, and see if I could make changes in how society works so that other people are less likely to do the same in future.

Kidnapping, rape, murder, perjury. Let's add hypocrisy. What if they spent their life talking about how these things are disgusting while keeping a sex slave in their basement?

You want to understand this person? What's to understand? They are rotten to the core, hardened in heart. They know that what they do is wrong, and do it anyway, and then hypocritically judge others for it.

And you want to understand them?

Yes.

[rickymooston]

Yeah, probably. So? I'm still not a ...

You believe deeply in self improvement. You are probably not a hypocrite but if the structure of your posts (not the length) causes confusion, you might consider modifying your style?    Nobody has ever given you the feedback that the quality of your thought is lacking.

Suggested Style: (coherent writing)
1. Tell them what you are going to say
2. Say it
3. Tell the what you said.

Your style (having conversations with yourself)
1. Say something that covers 75% of the truth as your opening statement
2. Analyse the working idea.
3. Present other considerations.
4. Conclude with a series of statements to cover the other 25%.

At least think about the above. The only way one can respond to some of your posts is to read the entire post multiple times and then reply Kerlyssa style without bothering to quote you. Its a bit annoying sometimes.

[Waldo]

Write a book.  That's what I'm doing when I'm not spending an entire day here...

[rickymooston]

If someone killed people I cared about, my main concern wouldn't be hating them and seeking retribution. I would want to understand why they did it, and see if I could make changes in how society works so that other people are less likely to do the same in future.

I like the bold. +1.

Personally, I think having a justice system that punishes people is one of the changes one can make to society to reduce the chance somebody else suffers the same fate.

I also think having constructive social programs that deals with people's problems early helps prevent some of these things

1) Child abuse
2) mental health issues
3) support (big brother program)

[JustMyron]

At least think about the above.

I am, Ricky, don't worry  .

IGI is kind of my scratch-pad sometimes. I think it's valuable to get feedback on ideas as they're forming, not just after they're formalized and polished. So yes, sometimes my posts are more conversations with myself than organized essays. This has up-sides (for me, and anyone who wants to understand in more detail how I think) and downsides (for people who would rather I just get to the freakin' point.)

[JustMyron]

Personally, I think having a justice system that punishes people is one of the changes one can make to society to reduce the chance somebody else suffers the same fate.

Think about this, though: On IGI, we are currently running an experiment to find out how much difference punishment makes, which has been ongoing since the forum started. Two years ago, we started out with a rules system that was less punitive than the summary bannination that people would often get on other forums, and yet our system worked, for the most part. The system we had then was much more punitive than it is now. Looking back through Codswallop's corner threads last night to find out if he was the original one to suggest that people should be able to edit their posts without penalty, I see that the original scale of penalties followed an exponential curve rather than a straight(ish) line, and offenses were kept on the books for 6 months rather than two. Now we're to the point where in almost all cases if you break a rule and then correct yourself, there's no penalty at all.

If QM's idea of how punishment works is true, the steady decline in punishments meted out by the moderators should have a negative effect on the environment here, making people more likely to offend more often and more egregiously. We'll see how it goes, but I'm betting that's not what will happen, or else I wouldn't have supported the change.

[rickymooston]

Think about this, though: On IGI, we are currently running an experiment to find out how much difference punishment makes, which has been ongoing since the forum started. ...

Yes i agree.

I think lots of things are involved ...

Many people get pissed off and leave when  they are cornered, despite the fact punishmenmt is ,ild being punished is the issue.

Vynn's entire corner period involved complaining about infractions in the corner

+1 for the thought.

[Night Train]

I think that science has a place, and its place is not to ask 'why' questions, only how.

Well, perhaps we're in agreement here. I can imagine a seismologist explaining the Haiti earthquake in terms plate tectonics, L waves and the like. But, what is the "why?" of the Haiti quake? Or is there one?

 

Which is why I don't worship scientists like many of the godless do. I know where meaning comes from, it only comes from a higher authority.

I don't understand the relationship between "value" and "higher authority". Are we talking about morality?

Science can't tell you why to live or how to live, except that it has already been given the purpose ... the end.

I think you guys are using a good word too, narrative.

So you think that most Christians believe the world is fair and people get what they deserve? Because that's not a Christian teaching, it's a far east belief, and usually extends into karma.

If people get what they deserve on earth then there's no point in an afterlife(of blessed reward or cursed penalty) or a final judgment(in which the wrongs are righted) or any of the distinctive parts of the Christian religion.

That might make sense if the afterlife and final judgment were known only to a handful of acolytes. In fact, the vast majority of Christians have incorporated these items into their worldview. They're like moviegoers who know that even though crazed psycho killer Jan-Micheal Vincent seems to be getting the best of Charles Bronson, truth and virtue will triumph in the last reel.

Ben

[Night Train]

The point that is getting lost in the back-and-forth is that most people (not just Christians) believe that the universe can be explained by a narrative, and that narrative has a moral.

Most people is a dangerous assumption. 

You're right--it is certainly a large assumption, and probably a dangerous one as well. If I hadn't been in such a hurry, I would have said something like the following: normal functioning adults try to relate the past, present and future in some sort of meaningful way. When they're in a reflective mood, this may take the form of what-is-the-meaning-of-it-all ruminations. But its usually something a lot more mundane. Some cubicle dwelling Dilbert is probably at this very moment thinking to himself, "I got up at six AM on this cold winter morning (past), so that I could commute to work and slave away in this cubicle (present), in the hope that when the inevitable corporate downsizing arrives, I'll be too valuable to sack"(future).

Ben

[Ratman]

But you said it was just. It is not just for someone to pay a fine for someone else. There is a very simple, obvious conflict between justice and mercy/forgiveness. You can't have it both ways.

Very good point.  Hypocrosy is so strong here I can taste it. When I take this imaginary god out of the picture, hypocrosy falls away.

As for the idea that God is good because he makes the law which defines what good means so he can say, do or be whatever he wants and that's good... that's just plain messed up. By that logic, anything you think God did becomes good in your eyes. There is no external standard, no error checking. Even if something God did appears sick and twisted to you, if you believe that God really did it, then you conclude that you are sick and twisted for not understanding how it's good, and push and push and push yourself until your conscience conforms to what you have convinced yourself it has to. You twist your own sense of justice around to make it an example of perfect justice when God kills his innocent son.

Here I can see why Jim Jones made it so big.  Thank you Myron.

[Ratman]

Kidnapping, rape, murder, perjury. Let's add hypocrisy. What if they spent their life talking about how these things are disgusting while keeping a sex slave in their basement?[/quote

But wait... The problem with this is the guy could have a family that he treats right and keeps the house payments up and is there for his kids and all.

The sex slave could be a story from the bible and he sees them holding the line with God so he feels it's alright if he has a concubine down in his basement that takes care of his stress and fantasys.


You want to understand this person? What's to understand? They are rotten to the core, hardened in heart. They know that what they do is wrong, and do it anyway, and then hypocritically judge others for it.

And you want to understand them?

Yes I believe in order to start some kind of healing we need to understand this from this person so this person can begin to heal somehow.

We have many drugs on this planet that we can use to help this person and that we could try to let him know that we all can be healed with our attitudes and love.

[rickymooston]

At least think about the above.

I am, Ricky, don't worry  .

Good. All I ask. Responding is also appreciated. I never claim my opinion is rock solid or anything.

IGI is kind of my scratch-pad sometimes. I think it's valuable to get feedback on ideas as they're forming, not just after they're formalized and polished.

I agree or I used to. Now I think i spent too much time thinking about silly things. For example the reality is that politics are decided by emotion.

So yes, sometimes my posts are more conversations with myself than organized essays. This has up-sides (for me, and anyone who wants to understand in more detail how I think) and downsides (for people who would rather I just get to the freakin' point.)

When you do that, its hard for anybody else to participate. You don't get the benefit of brain stomerming with others. You basically are posting a blog. Perhaps the blog has some merit as a blog.  Think of the forum as a place for discussion? Is that not a reasonable approach? I'm not syre but thats my feeling.

For the record, I used to do the same thing in my own fashion.  It comes from having a math background in some ways. I think in very similar fashion to the way you write. I in fact can argue both sides of an issue too, if I want to.

[rickymooston]

Last note:

For the record, I do in fact enjoy many of your insights.

You make some great posts.

You don't have to take my advice but I'm very glad if you give it some serious thought.

Perhaps there are posts where your "blog" approach is best. But others where it is not.

I do like that you do think deeply about things. People can see your thinking process.

So, take my sincere critism with the grain of salt with which it is intended. . For the record, while you may not think I've listened to your critism, in fact, I do think about many things you've said.